Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Electro Ceramics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Morgan Technical Ceramics. Independent notability not established. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Morgan Electro Ceramics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just an unreferenced advertisement for a subsidiary company Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 08:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Source searches are not providing independent, significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 06:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Morgan Advanced Materials ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect as this is basically their own website with the products listed and such, therefore not acceptable at all, my searches have found only a few links so there's simply nothing actually suggestive of keeping it, altogether or saved as a history. Delete therefore at best, SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you prefer deleting first before creating a redirect? ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Morgan Technical Ceramics, along with Morgan Advanced Ceramics. Tom29739 [ talk ] 20:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I considered the notion of merging, but the article has no sources or inline citations, just external links to official websites. North America1000 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is uncited material not a candidate for merging? You're not the first I'm hearing this from. It isn't mentioned at WP:MERGE. I haven't heard of this before so either it is a new thing or something specific to deletion discussions. Where does this come from? ~Kvng (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A blanket merge of entirely unsourced content essentially goes against the grain of WP:V. However, if the content is able to be sourced (and if this were to actually occur), I would be willing to change my !vote to a merge. North America1000 22:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, sourcing is required for challenged material or material likely to be challenged. The notability of the material here has been challenged in the AFD, but not the material itself. I realize that this article is not a particularly good example but I frequently see material blanked and redirected with unsourced as the justification and it doesn't always make sense to me. ~Kvng (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.